alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas E. Clark *v.*Aaron Hatfield.

New *triai—general rule in actions for libel, slander, etc.*The general rule is, that in penal actions, and in actions for libel or defamation, and other actions vindictive in their nature, a new trial will not be granted merely because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Menard county; the Hon. Lyman Lacey, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Whitney & Hoagland, Mr. H. W. Masters, and Mr. T. W. McNeely, for the appellant.

Mr. N. W. Branson, and Mr. W. R. Edgar, for the appellee.

*441Mr. Justice Sheldon

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This ivas an action for slander, wherein a verdict and judgment Avere rendered for the defendant. •

The only reason urged for a reversal of the judgment is, that the verdict is against the evidence.

The general rule is, that in penal actions, and in actions for a libel or defamation, and other actions vindictive in their nature, a hbav trial will not be granted merely because the verdict is against the Aveight of evidence. *Jarvis*v. *Hathaway,*3 Johns. 180; *Rundell*v. *Butler,*10 Wend. 119; Townshend on Slander, 494-5, 2d ed.

The case before us Aras not one of an aggravated character, and Ave see no cause why the general rule should not be applied.

The judgment will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 22697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9799]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-34-000]


Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of 
Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 8, 2011, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of 
the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2011), Midwest 
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) filed a petition 
for declaratory order seeking the Commission's confirmation that the 
terms of the Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) in effect between 
Southwest Power Pool and MISO, regarding the sharing of transmission 
capacity on a common path, as set forth in section 5.2 of the JOA, will 
remain in effect and applicable to Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (Entergy 
Arkansas) in the event Entergy Arkansas becomes a transmission-owning 
member of MISO.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#73353621303c1d1f1a1d16200603031c010733151601105d141c05"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54121106171b3a383d3a31072124243b262014323126377a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 9, 2011.

    Dated: April 15, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9799 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 for May Limited  Partnership  1983-2 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000735552
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1983-2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         206
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               375
<PP&E>                                         16,658
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   831
<SALES>                                        197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  75
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  6.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  6.25
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cuisine Solutions, Inc. (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(a)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 13, 2008 filed on the date hereof by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                   |  |                 
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|/s/ STANISLAS VILGRAIN |  | Chief Executive Officer           |  | January 22, 2009
|Stanislas Vilgrain     |  |                                   |  |                 
|                       |  |                                   |  |                 
|/s/ RONALD ZILKOWSKI   |  | Chief Financial Officer,          |  | January 22, 2009
|Ronald Zilkowski       |  | Treasurer and Corporate Secretary |  |                 



This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Cuisine Solutions, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 15,903

 16,167

 17,329

 17,561

 17,460

 16,976

 16,199

 14,890

 13,006

 12,950

 11,967

 11,450

 12,149

 11,803

 10,301

 10,793

 7,843

 6,493

 5,900

 5,148

 4,276

 4,321

 11,971

 14,946

 14,249

 13,223

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 6,697

 4,217

 4,331

 4,533

 4,318

 5,219

 4,434

 4,356

 4,162

 4,366

 4,611

 4,342

 3,423

 4,698

 3,728

 2,671

 1,665

 1,557

 1,488

 1,588

 1,381

 1,446

 1,703

 5,472

 5,603

 5,384

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 10,939

 9,023

 9,454

 9,754

 9,536

 9,777

 9,257

 8,650

 8,185

 8,342

 8,140

 7,552

 7,285

 7,349

 6,492

 5,537

 4,016

 3,764

 3,459

 3,135

 2,660

 2,621

 5,851

 9,451

 9,408

 8,989

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 11, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Organic HAP as a Percentage of Total Hydrocarbons 

August 6, 2010 

As part of the MACT floor analysis, the feasibility of an equivalent alternative standard 

based on analysis of the specific organic HAP species that are include in the THC was 

investigated. A previous study that compared total organic HAP to THC found that the 

organic HAP ranged from 0 percent to 98 percent with an average of 23 percent of the 

THC.1 Additional data submitted during the development of this proposed rule that 

included simultaneous measure of organic HAP species and THC was evaluated. Data on 

both organic HAP and THC were available from 5 tests, and the organic HAP ranged 

from about 5 percent to 50 percent and averaged 35 percent of the THC. This latest data 

are summarized in the attached table. Concentrations are in ppmv on a dry basis at 7 

percent oxygen. Where concentrations reported as below the detection limit, the detection 

limit value was used to estimate total organic HAP. 

 

1

 “Information Gathering and Analysis for Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP.” Docket Item II-B75 in Docket Number A-92-53. 
Company Kiln Type

Formalde

hyde, 

ppmvd@7

%O2

Benzene, 

ppmvd@7

%O2

Toluene, 

ppmvd@7%O2

Ethyl 

benzene, 

ppmvd@7

%O2

m,pXylene, 

ppmvd@

7%O2

Styrene, 

ppmvd@

7%O2

oXylene, 

ppmvd@

7%O2

Acetalde

hyde, 

ppmvd@

7%O2

Phenol, 

ppmvd@

7%O2

Hexane, 

ppmvd@7%O2

Naphthal

ene, 

ppmvd@

7%O2

Ash Grove Cement (2000) wet <0.41 0.06 <0.01 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.014 <0.28 <0.04 <5.52 

Ash Grove Cement (1994) wet 0.04 <0.02 <0.019 <0.019 <0.019 <0.019 

Ash Grove wet <0.37 0.16 0.15 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.04 <0.37 <0.06 <4.90 

Lafarge wet <0.28 0.59 0.037 0.007 Ash Grove (2002) PH/PC 0.57 0.23 0.10 0.28 0.27 <0.24 <0.003 

California PC (2005, 2) long dry 1.32 0.46 0.06 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.04 <0.63 <0.63 <0.10 California PC (2005, 1) long dry 1.66 0.30 0.05 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.03 <0.50 <0.50 <0.08 Ash Grove PH/PC 3.59 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.05 <0.06 <0.28 <0.30 <5.56 Lehigh PH/PC 4.79 <1.32 <1.32 <1.32 <1.32 <2.96 <1.32 California PC (2002) long dry 3.81 0.71 0.30 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 <0.77 <0.39 <0.09 Lafarge PH/PC 7.55 0.59 0.40 0.35 0.98 0.54 0.41 

Ash Grove (2001) PH/PC 18.88 0.21 0.09 <0.014 0.25 0.24 <0.023 <0.093 

Average 

Organic HAP and Total Hydrocarbon Test Results
(No. 73-CC-221

#### Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

*Opinion filed July 19, 1973.*

Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 198

 203

 240

 247

 294

 340

 339

 333

 330

 303

 384

 276

 282

 279

 339

 337

 362

 481

 546

 622

 661

 630

 512

 487

 443

 453

 454

 509

 568

 565

 481

 156

 153

 147

 148

 148

 146

 139

 144

 142

 148

 149

 148

 147

 156

 161

 164

 143

 148

 154

 148

 174

 161

 150

 152

 160

 163

 150

 149

 156

 145

 153

 172

 175

 180

 190

 199

 207

 212

 209

 202

 209

 214

 206

 202

 205

 221

 225

 221

 232

 262

 292

 319

 314

 264

 260

 266

 260

 259

 262

 272

 266

 269

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 25, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
#### Lloyd Burtis, an Infant, by Belle Burtis, Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
#### § 220.184 If the annuitant becomes disabled by another impairment(s).

If a new severe impairment(s) begins in or before the month in which the last impairment(s) ends, the Board will find that disability is continuing. The impairment(s) need not be expected to last 12 months or to result in death, but it must be severe enough to keep the annuitant from doing substantial gainful activity, or severe enough so that he or she is still disabled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information (in thousands except per
share data) extracted from Petroleum Heat and Power Co., Inc. and Subsidiaries
financial statements as of September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,767
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,945
<INVENTORY>                                     13,997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,712
<PP&E>                                          76,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,091
<BONDS>                                        278,864
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,555
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,648
<OTHER-SE>                                   (212,266)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,678
<SALES>                                        265,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               291,479
<CGS>                                          143,297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               103,792
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,390
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,996)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       325
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,321)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,211)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.29)
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 10677 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,** 
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Johnny Wayne Marshall, Jr.,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:19

- CR

- 37

- 1

**____________ __________________**  Before **Smith, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Following his 2020 guilty plea conviction for possession of firearm s by a convicted felon , Johnny Wayne Marshall, Jr., was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and a two

- year term of supervised release. After his supervis ed release term was revoked in 2021 , Marshall received a 10

- month prison term and 12 month s of supervised release. After this second

**_____________________**

* This opinio n is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 12, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10677 Document: 00516998881 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2023No. 23

- 10677

2 supervised release term was revoked in 2023 , Marshall received a 12

- month prison term but no further supervised release.

In the instant appeal, Marshall challenges the 2023 revocation. Relyi ng on United States v. Haymond , 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) , Marshall argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional because it requires revocation of supervised release and imposition of a prison term bas ed on facts that need not be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Marshall concedes that hi s argument is foreclose d by United States v. Garner , 969 F.3d 550, 551

- 53 (5th Cir. 2020), which held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond . He raises the issue t o preserve it for further review . Citing Garner , t he Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. The parties are correct that Garner forecloses this issue; therefore, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 40 6 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , its alternative motion for an extension of time is **DENIED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-10677 Document: 00516998881 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2023
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 6,342

 6,642

 6,166

 6,466

 7,200

 7,922

 7,803

 7,593

 7,800

 7,895

 8,393

 9,451

 9,860

 10,233

 10,453

 10,638

 10,792

 10,981

 10,776

 9,303

 9,361

 10,294

 10,380

 11,101

 10,114

 11,654

 13,836

 13,917

 14,453

 12,420

 676

 776

 786

 748

 952

 1,645

 2,056

 2,541

 2,266

 2,308

 2,419

 2,337

 2,480

 2,804

 2,727

 2,637

 2,612

 2,665

 3,020

 3,135

 2,606

 3,226

 3,578

 3,790

 3,404

 4,282

 4,697

 5,072

 4,578

 4,588

 2,687

 3,075

 3,495

 3,553

 4,149

 4,486

 4,607

 4,605

 4,370

 4,571

 4,645

 5,009

 5,576

 5,992

 5,873

 6,257

 6,265

 6,958

 7,391

 6,393

 5,920

 6,010

 6,212

 6,422

 6,910

 7,241

 9,082

 8,907

 9,280

 8,743

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 11, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES.

No. 11921.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 9, 1954.

Decided June 24, 1954.

Mr. Thomas J. Pearson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Gerard J. O’Brien, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis A. Carroll and Victor W. Caputy, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C.,' were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, jointly with one Brown, for the unauthorized use of a vehicle1 and for the grand larceny of an automobile, some vending machines, candy, etc.2 He was tried, received a directed verdict of acquittal upon the charge of grand larceny of the automobile, and was convicted on the first count and the remainder of the second count.

Appellant presents a number of points, principally that if he was guilty of any crime it was committed in Maryland and that the court should have granted a judgment of acquittal because it was not shown that he was present at the original taking of the automobile or other property or that he used the automobile in the District of Columbia. We think the proof was ample that appellant aided and abetted those who took the automobile and the property, and as an aider and abettor he was liable as a principal.3 The evidence showed that the planning and the taking were within the District of Columbia and that the appellant, in the District of Columbia, participated in various acts which were part, both preliminarily and subsequently, of the criminal venture. We find no error which affected the substantial rights of the appellant.

Affirmed.

1

. 37 Stat. 656 (1913), D.C.Code, § 22-2204 (1951).

2

. 31 Stat. 1324 (1901), 50 Stat. 628 (1937), D.C.Code, § 22-2201 (1951).

3

. 31. Stat. 1337 (1901), D.C.Code § 22-105 (1951); 18 U.S.C. § 2.
#### § 404.730 When evidence of a parent or child relationship is needed.

If you apply for parent's or child's benefits, we will ask for evidence showing your relationship to the insured person. What evidence we will ask for depends on whether you are the insured person's natural parent or child; or whether you are the stepparent, stepchild, grandchild, stepgrandchild, adopting parent or adopted child.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 17,270

 16,181

 15,869

 15,946

 16,289

 15,802

 15,001

 15,077

 15,692

 16,570

 17,189

 18,179

 18,199

 18,520

 19,233

 18,882

 18,041

 17,228

 18,088

 16,750

 16,089

 14,825

 14,277

 12,905

 13,401

 15,850

 15,326

 14,091

 13,601

 13,685

 9,351

 7,025

 7,594

 6,823

 7,011

 7,550

 6,546

 6,694

 7,745

 6,929

 9,669

 9,547

 9,207

 8,941

 9,078

 9,208

 8,555

 7,723

 7,995

 8,911

 7,775

 7,009

 7,055

 5,746

 5,734

 6,823

 5,401

 5,100

 4,091

 4,666

 13,365

 12,122

 11,790

 11,774

 11,830

 12,192

 11,598

 11,739

 12,153

 12,470

 13,116

 13,467

 13,536

 13,490

 13,814

 13,683

 12,845

 12,436

 13,937

 13,533

 12,296

 10,867

 10,189

 8,876

 8,996

 10,560

 10,353

 9,462

 8,871

 8,841

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 6, 2016

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER